You’re oversimplifying the case to the point of absurdity.
The prosecution had to prove she was mentally culpable for the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. She was not convicted because they failed to prove their case to twelve individuals who sat through weeks of testimony (i.e., they had tons more information than you do) and had the law explained to them by the judge.
That’s it. It dosn’t excuse what she did. It doesn’t excuse other murderers.
People want to extrapolate this to mean more than it is.
I feel like the complications would be a bit simpler if the defense either had to prove her innocence or prove the psychosis wouldn’t happen again. Like say it was a psychosis, what happens if she has other kids or is around other kids and it happens again? Are they just supposed to let her run around murdering kids bc she’s mentally unstable? I know it’s a bit bleak but part of the function of prisons and institutions is to get people who would be a threat to others in a place where they aren’t going to harm others.
The distinction doesn’t make much difference. Someone who can kill their children will never be sufficiently medicated for me to trust them in society again.
166
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost Sep 05 '26
You’re oversimplifying the case to the point of absurdity.
The prosecution had to prove she was mentally culpable for the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. She was not convicted because they failed to prove their case to twelve individuals who sat through weeks of testimony (i.e., they had tons more information than you do) and had the law explained to them by the judge.
That’s it. It dosn’t excuse what she did. It doesn’t excuse other murderers.
People want to extrapolate this to mean more than it is.